Categories

Popular Posts

Category: commentary

This is what I imagine will be the first of a few “political” posts over the coming years, if that’s not of interest to you – okee dokee. If it is, stay tuned.

First up:

Dear flacks… It’s time to get the torches and pitchforks. I know we may not like the press when they don’t respond to your pitch (pitch better, seriously) but the removal of our some of our most respected press outlets from the WH briefing room last week is something to get riled up about. This is your industry, you have a huge stake in this game and if you don’t see it you shouldn’t call yourself a PR pro, turn in your flack card – I’m embarrassed to know you. No, I won’t explain it to you.

But what to do? That I can help with:

Subscribe to your local paper and national news outlets – it helps with the moneyz and it helps circulation numbers so that imbecile in chief can’t claim that our press is failing. And yes – it’s our press.

Buy some swag – wear your heart on your forehead, chest, mug, pens, anything. Avow public and notoriously that you believe in Real News and Real Facts and Real Press.

If you don’t know the SPJ – read here. In short though, “The Society of Professional Journalists is the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior.”

I don’t know what to say. I grew up in JCCs. Nothing needs to be said here, nothing should need to be said here, but it’s everything. It’s people across this nation deciding that the best way to exact revenge upon people – mostly seniors and children – that have never done anything to them is by calling in a fucking bomb threat. And to what end? None – just fear, confusion and doubt.

The worst part – this is the lowest possible form of terrorism (and don’t think it’s not). This is the violent equivalent of prank calling your neighbor. These wimps are literally calling in their violence. You really want to show what kind of badass you are – show up at a Krav Maga class and start a fight or tell them you called in a bomb threat to their child’s preschool – I’ll pick you up at the hospital. I’ll go one better – show up in NYC (I’ll reimburse your flight) and explain to me, eye-to-eye, what anyone has ever done to you that merits anything approaching this. No promises about a hospital pickup after that though.

In a public forum, our President, implied that member(s) of the Jewish community was calling in the bomb threats to make others look bad. The over 100 bomb threats (link 2 above). All independently came up with this grand idea?

It’s not the lack of taste, the lack of evidence, the part where governement is supposed to protect, or that this is the beginning of an open door to search warrants (or searches without warrants) and investigations that’s bothering me (well, ok, they are…but not the big thing).

What’s bothering me this time though – is that I almost let this one slide. It didn’t surprise me. I tweeted, FB’d, IM’d privately but then I moved on. I didn’t Never Forget. This is how it starts – directing blame without proof and creating an enemy.

For some additional perspective on this topic be sure to check out Jason Mollica’s blog – One Guy’s Journey.

Get your coffee, turn on the tunes, and settle in for a read. I’ve been avoiding a post of this nature for some time, but its time has come.

Most everyone in PR has an opinion of Peter Shankman. It’s a bit of a litmus test – doesn’t matter what your opinion is, as long as you’ve got one there’s a strong chance you’re actually in PR. I won’t go into who he is – if you don’t know this post is likely not for you. Continue reading No More Kool-Aid

Don’t really have much to say about this one — no deep thoughts or analysis. First sent this around to an internal group around 10 days ago, and I’ll just quote what I wrote to them, which pretty much covers it.

I’ve apparently become too comfortable in NYC. This happened all the time where I came from in one manner or another.

Spotted on the lawn in front of [A major building near the Fin. District] this morning on the way to kid’s school. Thankfully he wasn’t paying attention and doesn’t read that quickly yet.

I’m actually even torn about posting the pic. But I’m a big believer in the whole "Words only gain power when you hide from them."

Another rant to a fellow twitter/blogger/parent (who may not want to be mentioned here so I’ll leave her name out) went more like this:

What the F___? I spotted this on the lawn in front of [same major building] (0.08 miles from my apt’s front door) this morning while taking my 5yo [yo is net shorthand among parents for year old] to school. Thankfully he wasn’t paying attention and doesn’t read that quickly yet.

It’s 2010 in downtown NYC and we still have this s___ to contend with. I hate/dislike plenty of people, but not because of their gods, skin color, etc. Mostly it’s stupid that bothers me and stupid is totally equal opportunity. Ok. Again, sorry to impose – I should know better, I’ve lived near the sticks. End Rant. Thanks.

Everyone’s responses were very helpful — thank you all 12 of you.

And it’s 10 days later and I’m still at a loss for what to say / think.

I’m not naive. As mentioned I’ve lived near the sticks – I’ve been evacuated from synagogues because a bomb threat was called in, gone to buildings that because of who occupied the building had swat-esque armed security in place, lived in cities where defamation of synagogues was a monthly event. Been there, done that, thanks. It’s one of the reasons we moved to NYC – so that if you say you’re living in a certain part of town people don’t look at you and ask “Isn’t it kind of dark there?” And they don’t mean the amount of light. (No, I’m not kidding).

I know had this happened in another year the kid would’ve been able to read it quickly enough and understand all the words that I’d have to start explaining hate for the sake of hate, racism, bigotry and all those fun states of mind that only exist because they’re taught. I’m not looking forward to the day I have to explain these concepts to a 6 or 7 yo and that because of the religion he happens to have been born into one day he may encounter someone he’s never met who already hates him.

That day, now that day will be classic – you’ll see some high-level PR-Worthy spin. I’ll let you know how it goes.

Ok, not an ulcer, but this post has been stewing for a few days and I think it’s finally ready to be served. But first, one of my favorite quotes from The Art of War (one of my Top 10 books), with my own addendum…

And keep your business associates as far the eff away as you can.
~PR Cog (November 24, 2009)

Last week, great PR practitioner, David Spinks reminded us on his blog that he’s here (on social media sites, etc.) for business and not to be our friends. For him it seems, if friendship develops, that’s great, but it’s not his primary purpose.

The only thing that’s really preventing me from getting completely up in arms is his response to the blog post’s first comment: “You’re absolutely right that we have to remember that everyone is not here for that purpose that you may be.”

Earlier in the response however he asks, “There are people in the social media space that are here just to make friends? Who? lol There may be some people who act like they’re here just to make friends, but I doubt that’s the real case.”

In case you’re wondering — I’m raising my hand David. (So is my proper self (who never talks business on Twitter), my Rabbi (who much to my chagrin is on Twitter), my Liberal Arts department head (with tenure) from college (who pretty much only talks about music by the Beatles and G. Dead on Twitter), etc.)

Need proof of my own intent? How would a person with no traceable identity get or drive business without revealing themselves? (And yes, until a few weeks ago there were under 10 people (PRBC-ers included) who knew my first name, and I believe 4 who knew my full name.)

Need more proof? In the half dozen or so events I’ve had the honor of pulling (or assisting in pulling) together between Masquertweet and PRBC never has a single dollar stayed in my pocket, an organization that I’m formally affiliated with benefited fiscally, or any business come my way.

Nota Bene: In case anyone is still confused, the name on Facebook is not my real name. Properly read it should be PeteRCOGnoscenti i.e. PR Cog (Cognoscenti does actually mean something – http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cognoscente . The name is a joke but FB requires a real looking name and so I grew one…). I still introduce myself as Peter in-person since it makes more sense for those not in-the-know.

My single greatest SM joy (and I think I’ve posted this elsewhere) is introducing people, who don’t know each other, but I believe should. That’s certainly not business (unless you’re actually a matchmaker). But from what I’ve seen, and the thanks I’ve received, has been highly successful.

In part, I doubt the veracity of your post. Not that you’re being dishonest, but rather that you’re really here for equal(ish) parts work and play, but that doesn’t make for great copy and given the option it’s always better to take the high (“professional”) road. You seemed to be having a good time (socially) at the meetup a few weeks back (which is the point, of course so it’s not a negative) and I didn’t see much work going on and yet the entire event was strung together based on social media. Entirely possible I missed the work component but I likely would’ve heard about something that out of the ordinary (all kinds of tidbits make their way around – it’s a bit spooky really).

In part, I’m highly offended. You want to do business — grand. Then your bio (and anyone else who’s here just with work intentions) should only show business information and leave anything personal out. For me, I’m rarely more annoyed than when a casual conversation turns into a business pitch. I’d also be highly disappointed to discover I may have subjected guests at a social event to a sales pitch of some variety. As indicated above, I don’t think this happened at our event, but for those with a single minded purpose it doesn’t seem like it would be a great leap.

Do I shun those on social media sites that are here for business primarily or solely — of course not. But at least say so when we first interact, not some 6 months later (you started following me on June 29th — I don’t have the reverse date though). For me intent is a big part of any motivation — a pure, honest intent can go far to correct mistakes. Bad intent on the other hand … well, as they say, GIGO.

One point of clarification – do I believe there is gray between pure biz and pure play — of course. It’s a large gray area IMHO that most of us fall into. There is a vast difference between learning from our peers and colleagues in the course of conversation and coming to this playground with the specific intent to build your (or your company’s) brand or business. Heck, I gain insight into our biz in social settings (even from non-PR-folks) all the time — I wouldn’t presume to call that business.

I came here to talk and play. You came here for professional reasons. I’m certain those I ‘speak’ with regularly know my intent when I engage with them.

Special thanks to Alex Tan for playing Devil’s Advocate (Factoid: an actual job in the Roman Catholic Church) with me over the last week.

This post is, in its entirety a response to a blog comment over at PRBreakfastClub.com. Per my usual m.o. I chase down the points in the discussion to their conclusions so the answer got a bit long. Rather than blow up the comment system at PRBC I posted the response here, with a link at the other page. Any direct responses that might develop the conversation should be posted there.

Hi JR —

Welcome to the blog. I hope we can expect to see you around in the future as well.

All evidence to the contrary I don’t like to disagree with people but I’m intrigued by your comments. And so…..

Skipping your comment regarding the tech boom of the last decade and half, since I’m not convinced it has been driven by young people, it seems (from a number of your assertions) that we’re working with different definitions of “expert.”

Multiple definitions of expert include some mention of ‘expert’ status deriving from knowledge (through education/training) or experience in a particular area (wikipedia (whose page on this is actually quite good) and dictionary.com). Taking that into consideration it would appear that the ‘expert’ claim should only apply to a small piece (or multiple individual pieces) of the puzzle not the puzzle as a whole, likely because the puzzle is normally too broad of a landscape for any one person to be an expert in all of it.

Now, of course a significant part of this is semantics (and this is not an issue w/ your post but rather the definition and how we frame the question). Someone can claim to be a ‘computer expert’ but to use that term implies they know enough of what there is to know about every hardware and software option from mainframe and distributed computing systems to my iPhone (which is essentially a computer with a phone thrown in).

If we pare this down to ‘expert in desktop systems’ then we’re approaching something that is actually possible. I’ve had colleagues who are well versed in the three major desktop platforms and can be called upon to express an informed opinion based on education and experience. That being said, even they were not experts at each aspect of each system — they may have known the software platform but when it came to suggesting specific hardware or applications would occasionally fall flat. Part of the question when trying to call upon an expert is finding what expert you need.

Similar to researching a doctor, attorney, accountant, or flack….errr PR Pro — what area of the field do they know about — I wouldn’t approach an OB/GYN with questions about the rash on my arm, a litigator to form a company, a personal accountant to do the books for my Fortune 500 company or a book publicist to handle a new consumer electronic launch. Unless they’ve got true ‘mad skillz’ they don’t have the knowledge or experience in my necesssary small piece of the puzzle.

Anyway —

Regarding your mention of Netscape and Napster – taking a more macro view of technology – yes people still do use Netscape and Napster. Netscape introduced at least four technology revolutions (the company made the web practical for e-commerce by developing SSL, was one side of the 1st browser war, spawned the Mozilla Foundation (one of the major players in the open source revolution) and through Firefox is a player in the 2nd browser war). There’s still Netscape code on a significant number of desktop PCs in use today. Napster spawned the entire peer-to-peer file transfer system which kicked (and continues to kick) the MPAA/RIAA’s tush for the last 10 years. So while these two individual companies may have not had business savvy, to say they (or their users/developers) weren’t experts in their respective fields may be off the mark.

I am though intrigued as to the business savvy requirement / expertise connection you mention. I’m not aware of any claim that experts be profitable (consider all the sheer-genius absent minded professors we all know who are certainly experts but couldn’t balance a checkbook with an accountant and triple beam scale). And, while we’re on the topic, Netscape was purchased by AOL for the stock equivalent of 4.2 billion. Not too shabby.

I’m also of the opinion that examining twitter as the area of expertise these youngin’s can excel at might be under-inclusive. Any PR Pro relying on twitter as the only aspect to a social media presence has not only missed the boat but is likely not anywhere near the shore. Social media is not just about a single platform but using the appropriate platform for the appropriate audience. A photographer on twitter — great…I hope they’re also using flickr (or other photo site). A musical performer – they need to also be using a platform to distribute their files. A really long-winded PR Pro (*ahem*) that likes to analyze and discuss everything ad nauseam must have a blog to handle the volume of the writing because comment boxes can explode and Twitter’s just too short.

And to say Social Media hasn’t rewritten the ‘book’ (though I’m not sure which book we’re referring to exactly) would be, IMHO, a tad late as SM, in one form or another, has been around for approximately 2 decades and has rewritten many books. We didn’t call it social media back then — but AOL chatrooms, BBS systems, message boards, etc. were all early social media platforms.

Podcasting’s dead? Don’t tell the folks at the Wall Street Journal, Wired, or the other podcasters (especially the piles of music blogs). Same question regarding direct mail (I still get tonnes of it) and billboards (which I saw plenty of this weekend). As far as today’s “experts” being replaced — that’ll be the true test of expertise — whether today’s crop can adapt and move with the technology. I have faith that they can.

Plenty of ‘old skool’ flacks have joined the twitter revolution — it doesn’t mean they don’t pick up pen and paper (some literally — thanks Heather) and write a long form press release before announcing its presence to the twitterverse and flacking the dead horse there.

I don’t think we’re going to find piles of ‘underqualified for anything other than social media flacks’ anytime in the future, at least not the good ones (the bad ones will weed themselves out at some point no matter how much we try to help them). There’s plenty of hours in the day and days in the year for everyone to pick up a new skill to help them excel. In fact, the highly talented Valerie Simon has an excellent guest blog post on this topic at the Journalistics.com blog. [Shameless plug — Valerie will be guest posting at PRBreakfastClub.com on Wednesday]

For comparison in another field Consider Marc Andreessen – one of the Netscape founders (an example of your choosing). Following the AOL acquisition of Netscape he went on to form Loudcloud (later Opsware) which was acquired by HP for 1.6 Billion and has recently formed Ning. If memory serves he’s one of the few silicon valley guys to have 2 billion-dollar (plus) companies acquired (Thanks @sarahcuda).

He co-founded Netscape in 1994, when he was 23. Opsware 5 years later, so he would’ve been 28. Ning in 2005 making him 34 at the time. He’s currently an investor in Digg, Netvibes and Twitter and sits on the board of Facebook, eBay, the Open Media Network as well founding his own VC firm, which (literally) days ago acquired a majority stake in Skype. At the age of 38. While we can’t all be Andreessens there are plenty like him who evolve and move with their markets. Learn the new tools when they become worthwhile and discard them when not.

That’s what life is all about – taking in the new, experiencing things, getting the most out of them, seeing how they work for you and then picking and choosing which parts you choose to retain and which you choose to not hold onto, carrying on and repeating.

Simple fact is there are still people using AOL notwithstanding how horrible it is. There are still people using non-smartphones even though there are plenty of options out there now for smartphones that do so much more. But their chosen tech works for them and their purposes. The same applies to direct mail, billboards and podcasts. If they didn’t fit the needs of the person or company using them they’d stop, but they do continue to work.

Given our prior discussion on what makes an expert I’m not sure how one can call oneself an expert when we can lead “a team working on technology we don’t even understand,” when one of the requirements of being an expert is knowledge or training in the field. Further I’m mystified where any kind of leadership requirement comes in. Is being able to lead a team a valuable skill — of course.

Can people who are not experts lead a team — yes: usually to failure unless that leader surrounds themselves with others who are experts in that area. Good leadership without specific expertise is done all the time with great success — Politicians lead their constituency without knowing everything there is to know about business, education, environmental issues, healthcare, etc. of their designated regions. Military leaders don’t know everything there is to know about the local population, geography/terrain, politics, climate, etc. of the region they’re working in. Rather they are successful because they know how (and when) to call upon the experts in the areas of knowledge in which they’re lacking.

“Technology changes, the basics do not.” I certainly agree with you here. I certainly hope the basics are still being taught. For flacks – proper sentence structure, persuasive writing, client and journalist relations, all that fun stuff. From the high skill level I’ve seen among the youngin’s around me it would appear we’re secure in the basics.

Though I am mystified by “only years of experience can give us the foundation that is needed to be truly effective with the twitters of the world.” Based on your own comment Twitter will be replaced in short order and no textbooks re-written because of it. When do these “years of experience” come in and why would you want “the foundation that is needed to be to be truly effective with the twitters of the world.” The great thing about “emerging technologies” is that those on top of their game will continue to learn the technology and stay at the front line of the tech revolution.

Since it seems from the lack of profile attached to your comment (and a quick google search) you’re not a Twitter user yourself, though I could certainly be wrong on that (I’m skipping the Facebook possibility because I know a number of people, myself included, prefer not to attach their professional work to a personal Facebook profile). I am curious what “fancy computer witchcraft” you prefer/endorse for your professional activities.

I’m also a bit perplexed that you can’t do the jobs of the the ‘pen & paper generation,’ specifically if the basics do not change. Shouldn’t their skill set be an integral part of your own formal or on-the-job education? Perhaps you wouldn’t be able to do it with the same speed, flair or success rate, but certainly I’d expect you’d be able to do the work, even as the most jaded SM-worshipping PR Pro can still put together a press release that conveys the important information in some manner that is engaging.

Please ignore that headline — It’s misleading at best, and just a ploy to get you to click on the link at worst…but now that you’re here, an explanation….

The fantastic Elizabeth Sosnow posed a question the other day that I knew would spend time bouncing around in the back of my head until I sat down and tried to answer it (or the answer came forwards all on its own). It could also be that she was just sitting in traffic, bored and wanted some dialogue and I got stuck in the trap (headline tie-in — trap…get it? Watch for the rest of the tie-in, below). That question — well here you go….

Like any overeducated, overthinking professional I began to consider the question, analyze each aspect of it and pry the question apart.

That’s not true.

What I did, like any overeducated, otherthinking flack is begin to construct ridiculously configured long flowy Philosophy 302 paragraphs while skipping the substance of the question itself. Yes, I was seduced by the mystique of a good question, a chance to stretch long dormant muscles.

Then I sat down to write and reread the question and realized I actually did not have a good answer.

So let’s examine the question first — let’s figure out what a “thought leader” is. It turns out wikipedia can answer the question for us and get us to its first usage. A thought leader is “a futurist or person who is recognized among peers and mentors for innovativeideas and demonstrates the confidence to promote or share those ideas as actionable distilled insights.”

So the leader portion refers to the person’s ability to lead, not the concepts the person themselves creates as leading (groundbreaking) opinions. So basically we’re talking about smart leaders.

Not a lot of help for Elizabeth’s question because now we have two questions:

Are leaders born or self made

Are thought[ful / thinking] people born or self made.

Let’s attack #2 first. Cop out on this one — these kinds of people (we’ll call them ‘smart’ for these purposes) can be both self made and born. We’ve all known the guy (or gal) in the office who has that spark — can walk into a room, look at a problem the rest of the team has been puzzling over for days and say, “turn it left 90 degrees” and suddenly the problem is fixed. He’s the guy that can intuit the answer to the problem at hand. The problem with innately smart people — it always comes easy to them and so they frequently don’t need to work particularly hard because they don’t have to. There are definitely some who still work hard, but from my own experience they rely on their innate talents far too long and have a hard time picking up the skills required to do the hard work when it’s time.

They were the kids in school who didn’t do their math problem sample tests, questions or homework because once they learned to do whatever the question was they could just do it. No practice required. They could sit down at a piano and replay something they had heard days earlier, but better. You know the type. You hate them.

Then there’s the other guy on the team — the guy you hand the problem to who will work at it. He’ll look like crap for days until the problem is solved because he’s at his desk researching every possible solution for way too late every night, looking up the potential answer in texts in sanskrit and because he doesn’t trust the translation he’ll learn sanskrit along the way. He has no flair for the dramatic. When he presents his answer it won’t be “turn it left 90 degrees.” It’ll be 90 minutes of how he got the answer and then end with “and now turn it left 90 degrees.” He’s a great worker, but heaven help him if he has to lie or give an answer on his feet he hasn’t prepped for. You hate him too, but are happy to grab a beer with him.

So — short answer — both.

Now — are leaders born or self made.

All the definitions I’ve found have, in some manner or another, included two primary elements — the ability to ‘rally the troops’ — that is to get people to believe in you and/or your cause; and get them to work to that common end.

Again we’ll dispose of the 2nd one first — a good leader should be able to get their people to follow them in any cause. We’ve seen this power abused throughout history in dictatorial regimes, etc. The ’cause’ is secondary to the ability to get the supporters.

Now, onto the first element. This one seems to boil down to charisma — a leader is a person charismatic enough to get others to follow their lead.

Can charisma be taught or learned? Who knows…but it doesn’t matter because there’s a twist to our question….

The question gets more complex. As a previously shy person, with minimal ‘charisma,’ when I was younger, over time I learned/was taught to come out of my shell and try to be more engaging (not so sure I’d go so far as to say charismatic). Here’s the kicker — I’m not sure I was ever ‘taught’ this. It’s entirely possible the traits/skills were actually just dormant and I became more comfortable with them simply as something that occured as part of the maturing process one goes through in those formative years. Meaning it’s theoretically possible for someone to seem uncharismatic and over time (whether through ‘self-making’ or simple maturity/growth) develops into a more engaging person.

To hell if I know.

But after all this (and most of a serving of absinthe) I’ve decided it doesn’t matter – sorry Elizabeth.

Here’s why — the true thought leaders, the ones that possess all the necessary skills and that spark to put it all together, will naturally emerge in some way — in their own environments, sectors, fields, etc. Some may not go far, but they will be a leader in their own right. The union president — yup, that’s him, give him an ivy league education and he’s a senator. The PTA mom — maybe (she could just be bitter and no one else cares). The SVP that can’t get promoted because he’s too good dealing with operations and actual people — it’s her.

Odds are there’s a single true thought leader of every 100 or more that possess the necessary skills on paper.

There’s no need to identify them and refine their skills. Those that aren’t born with it all won’t catch-up to those that have it naturally and work at it simultaneously. And if someone doesn’t have the complete package or the desire to cultivate their talent — do we really want to force it on them? True thought leaders will have everything needed to break away from the pack, including the desire to do so.

It would seem though, that at the end of all of this there is a single answer (ok, maybe it does matter Elizabeth).

Both.

The skillset must exist in the person to be sufficiently cultivated throughout their lifetime that they can lead when the time is right. But they must also have the innate drive to continually self-improve so they know where and how to lead their people.

I’m frequently asked why I don’t name names when addressing bad marketing / PR practices. The answer is usually in part because this person may have mitigated what seems like bad conduct elsewhere and I may just not have found it or I see no reason to call someone out for an innocent blunder (at least what I consider, IMHO, to be a blunder).

Usually it’s something I’ve seen elsewhere, to some degree or another, but there’s always one particular incident that stands out and I base the post on that, without calling anyone out.

That’s not a strict policy.

It’s all case by case, and will continue to be.

But today we break the 4th wall and go deeper than ever.

Why…because when it’s obviously not innocent, obviously offensive, resorts to ad hominem attacks, and is against someone I know and trust (who I know wouldn’t deserve such conduct) it’s time to point out the line in the sand that’s been crossed…and to do so with gusto, if at all possible.

That it also happens to be bad PR and is just plain ol’ shi#y, just makes it all the more fun.

This post was originally going to be about how often it seems we’re stroking each other’s egos in the industry — can we all really think all of our friends’ blog posts are that fantastic that we’re retweeting them to everyone and commenting?

Of course not, but we’re there supporting each other in the industry and trying to provide new and insightful commentary. Of course much of what we say has been said before, perhaps not as well, by others and we’re just adding our own spin to it. While not necessarily academic, it is supportive, and given what I’ve seen lately probably for the best.

Now, as far as “Man(ning) Up” …

Over the last several weeks (and the last week in particular) I’ve seen a number of negative, condescending, passive aggressive and/or half-assed tweets directed at campaigns or individuals. Some of the campaigns being run by our brethren (or at least their clients). (No I’m not naming names or linking tweets, no need to call anyone out).

Seriously folks — we’ve got the world at our disposal to get our ideas out there – twitter, blogs, podcasts, video blogs, etc.

If you’re going to muster up the energy to type in 140 characters or less being negative or objecting to someone’s content (whether it’s a campaign, blog post, or twitter stream) at least “Man Up,” put on the track suit and run the race (This is particularly true if the receiving party calls you on (what is likely) your BS).

If you’re (considered) a thought leader in our field, or actually do have deep thoughts about these things (and simply don’t have the 5-figure fanbase), you owe it to your listeners to give them more than 140 characters on your groundbreaking, cutting edge, revolutionary [how many more horrible press release words can I use] theory/conclusion.

A Campaign sucks? Tell anyone who will listen why in a full blog post or podcast – talk to them about branding, how the LCD (lowest common denominator – i.e. the great majority of the populace) will view the campaign, how it damages the company’s prior reputation or image in the sector where they were the leader.

A twitterer’s stream bothering you? Tell ’em why and offer advice on how they can fix it to your liking, not just to ‘stop.’ Or, when they respond, engage in what we call dialogue and perhaps you’ll find a meeting of the minds, or at the very least a more thorough understanding of each other.

Whether or not the advice is taken at least at that point you’re providing a real opinion, (hopefully) backed up by coherent thought, logic, perhaps even case studies or the like. Not firing off a half-assed, extraordinarily brief, (non-rebuttable since there’s nothing to respond to but a conclusion) attack on their work in the public sphere. We’re all professional communicators (heaven help us), don’t we owe it to each other, and those that learn from us, to give it our best each and every time we try to express a professional thought?

A day and a half ago I’m sitting at my work PC, working on some client nonsense or such when I received a direct message which read, “OMFG we are being so rude according to shankman – we @ reply each other WAY too much.” [This was during Tuesday’s HARO call with @skydiver and@chrisbrogan — BTW, if you’re not following them, follow them – what’s wrong w/ you? They give great info and are certainly worth the follow].

Anyone who follows me knows this is at least partially true — I tweet (and @ reply) a lot. Tons — I’ve been on twitter for about a year and as of this writing have 14K tweets. My last thousand tweets averaged out to nearly 150 tweets per day (not bragging, just making sure everyone saw the unit of time). I tweet about everything – client/journalist pet peeves; what I’m listening to; reading; blogs I’m commenting on; and yes even occasionally what I’m eating.

Of course my initial response was, “You and I got called out specifically on a HARO call?” I was a bit impressed. Of course this wasn’t the case. Before commenting I waited to get the mp3 and listened…it wasn’t as inflammatory as I had originally thought, the full conversation (which followed a discussion of follower loyalty vs. number of followers) was this (Peter speaking in this quote):

[some sentence fragments removed for readability]

“…they [someone commenting on twitter I believe] disagree, it’s about answering, talking and answering your followers and having conversations on twitter. And Chris you might argue with me on this. I don’t believe that you should respond to every single person who responds to you in the public using an @ reply. I tend to direct message anyone who sends me an @ reply unless it’s something of value to the bigger audience. In my opinion, if you send me a question and I reply to you and it’s a personal question or it’s not of interest to everyone I’m being rude to 50,000 of my followers who might not care so I’m very very big on the dm not so big on the @ reply in a public forum. There are other people who disagree with that, there are companies who will @ reply every single person with the most trivial facts, if that works for them great – I just don’t believe once you hit a critical mass on twitter that that’s worth it…Chris what do you think about that?” [Chris’s Skype connection conked out. When he returned he agreed with Peter and the conversation tangented to a quick discussion of multiple accounts.]

I’m one of those who disagree.

First, a few notes:

a) I appreciate that Peter notes it might work for some people,

b) I’m not Peter and don’t have anywhere (and likely never will have anywhere) near his following.

c) I certainly don’t know what the critical mass is, but it’s presumably somewhere between my 1,800 followers and his 49,000.

Here’s what I do know:

a) off ALL of my off topic, sometimes nonsensical, double entendre laden tweets never have I been told I’m tweeting too much. Have I been unfollowed — sure. Do I know why — of course not.

b) some of the best conversations I’ve had with people would not have happened if I wasn’t tweeting nearly everything publicly.

More re: b) — when you do follow a decent number of people, individual tweets become blurred. If you only tweet once about a subject it’s very likely to get caught in the larger stream of those watching and very potentially never seen. If you’re having a good, interactive conversation you’ve got a better chance of being heard and others joining the conversation.

IMHO this leads back to the greatest question of the twitter-age — Why are you using twitter? I, personally use it as my own water cooler not soap box. A place to have conversations with others on the topics of the day and our lives.

When asked about twitter by Luddites I compare it to a cocktail party — you walk in, may know a few people there and can join or initiate any conversation without it being rude or intrusive. At the same time you can pull someone to the side and have a private conversation with them. But if we begin conversations and immediately pull the person we’re speaking with aside and talk only to them about it we’re losing the possibility that someone else in the group may have something of value to contribute to the conversation.

Simply put, IMHO (and compared to these two giants in the industry it is my own humble opinion) — until you ask, or allow for the possibility, there is no way to know what will and what won’t interest any number of your followers and to block that from happening by moving to directs immediately isn’t what twitter’s about (for me at least).

Of course asking everyone about their interests, keeping a record of it, and then somehow involving them in certain conversations is impractical if not impossible (remember, no multi-directs) on twitter. That leaves allowing for it to happen naturally — i.e responding publicly, the way the question was asked and see who pipes up. You never know what hidden gems you’ve got in your following until you let them know what you’re talking about and who else may be able to participate.

Proof of this came to me a few weeks back at Masquertweet, and I fully expect it to happen again at #MNH —

I had a few, personally great moments at the event. The first of course being able to help 12for12K raise money for their July charity Eye Care for Kids.

The other joy, mostly unnoticed by others thanks to my mask, was seeing people I had been talking to for months and had introduced to each other online finally meet each other in person, and have real conversations about work, play and everything in between — without me doing any sort of weird twitter-matchmaker handholding. Some of them even making individual plans to get together and continue their conversations following the event. These were connections that may not have happened but for my introduction and I have no doubt that I was able to make those introductions because I chat up everyone publicly and allow the possibility that my followers will find each other interesting separate and apart from me.

This even took place NOT at an event — by leaving the door open for the possibility of a natural friendship to develop between two agencies I knew individually and had introduced to each other a new, hopefully life-long bond, has been forged. A connection (among many others) which fills me with joy each time I see any of them @, RT or #FF the other.

I’m not a big believer in #Followfriday, but each time I’m included in a #FF grouping and every other name I see is one I know, and I recognize introductions I’ve made, I glow a little bit. If these two (or more) random people have connected and like each other enough to now pay attention to each other (and become friends), and I was in some small way a part of that process it’s makes my Friday and my twitter life just that bit better.